Interview with The Michael Brooks Show
Interview · zizekpodcast.com ·
2019-12-04 · 0:47:39 · 6,618 words
capitalismcommunism-socialismideologyliberalism-political-correctnessdemocracyrevolution-violencegeopolitics-warrace-antisemitismfascism-populismhistoryecology-climatetechnology-ai-cyberspace
Žižek appears on TMBS (The Michael Brooks Show) for a wide-ranging political conversation covering left strategy in the US and UK, global protest movements, identity politics and race, the Singapore/China model of authoritarian capitalism, Brexit and Labour, Kurdish Rojava, and the impeachment of Trump. He argues for a reinvigorated left populism grounded in common decency rather than cultural political correctness, supports Sanders and Corbyn, and insists that structural systemic analysis must replace fixation on individual bad actors like Trump.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 14
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “depoliticization strategy”
Žižek describes how Yugoslav and Chinese authorities permitted drugs, pornography, and religious obscurantism precisely to keep the younger generation politically passive, anything goes as long as it prevents political mobilization.
Implied in Žižek's analysis of how Chinese authorities enforce Marxist texts while making actually reading them dangerous, ideology functions not through belief but through structural abstraction that bypasses consciousness.
Žižek identifies an implicit transnational call from Chinese state agencies to Western governments to cooperate in suppressing popular unrest, stripping away ideological rhetoric to reveal a naked class solidarity of ruling elites.
as “the true moral majority”
Žižek argues the left should reclaim the language of common decency and moral majority from the right, positioning itself as the authentic defender of ordinary people's values against postmodern obscenity.
as “X as lack / the X of particular identity”
Drawing on Malcolm X, Žižek argues that the violent erasure of Black particular identity (the 'X') opens a unique chance to propose a more radical universalism rather than filling the gap with a substitute identity.
Žižek insists genuine universalism is not Western liberal imposition but is latent in every tradition and must be discovered and constructed through particular struggles.
Žižek's mocking pun on Samuel Huntington's name, dismissing the Clash of Civilizations thesis as a kind of intellectual pathology.
Against Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, Žižek argues the real antagonism is internal to every civilization, emancipatory vs. oppressive traditions, not between civilizations.
as “the Singapore model”
Žižek uses Singapore as the emblematic form of authoritarian capitalism, brutal market competition combined with a strong authoritarian nationalist state, which he identifies as the global trend replacing both liberal democracy and socialism.
as “the morning-after test”
Žižek's criterion for judging revolutionary movements: not the euphoric moment of mass protest but what happens the next morning when the drunkenness passes and ordinary people assess whether everyday life has changed.
as “true leader”
Žižek distinguishes a true leader, one who makes people aware of their own capacities and freedoms, from an authoritarian one who claims to know what people want better than they do.
Žižek's wordplay on Obama's 'yes we can,' exposing how the promise of emancipatory politics was revealed as mass surveillance.
as “unfreedom embodied in the system”
Žižek argues the real threat to freedom is not corrupt individuals misusing power but the structural forms of control and domination built into state and corporate apparatuses (NSA, Facebook, Google).
Žižek's account of how Trump's vulgarity and working-class appeal operates as an address that hails certain subjects, establishing affective contact beyond rational policy argument.
Stories he reaches for 3
Žižek reads Malcolm X's adoption of 'X' not as a call for a new particular identity but as an embrace of the constitutive lack, the erasure of African roots, as the very opening for a more radical Black universalism.
“this X, the lack of particular identity, gives us Blacks a unique chance to propose our own universalism which will be more radical and better than white man's universalism.”
Žižek argues that only through the Haiti Revolution, which Haitians themselves conceived as the actualization of the French Revolution, did the French Revolution become a truly universal world-historical event.
“it's only through Haiti Revolution that the French Revolution became a truly universal world historical event. Without that it would be just just some European thing.”
Žižek contrasts Ambedkar, who embraced Buddhism to reject caste and propose universalism, with Gandhi, who said all castes are children of God but did not challenge the caste structure itself, only one truly breaks with particularism.
“Gandhi... said they are all children of God. But this didn't mean let abolish castes. This meant just acknowledge the decency and the proper place to each of the caste.”
Works invoked 5
Kill All Normies book
Žižek endorses Angela Nagle's argument that the alt-right has appropriated transgressive obscenity and brutality, deploys this to argue the left must reclaim decency.
Joker (2019 film) film
Žižek rejects the socio-psychological reading of Joker's genesis but finds a 'moment of truth' in the film: Joker is nothing but his mask, no warm inner person, which is truer than totalitarian leaders' self-presentation.
Žižek's own book, mentioned as evidence of his reach, it circulates in pirated editions in Lebanon and Egypt, and he is invited there, rebutting charges of Islamophobia.
Black Jacobins book
CLR James's book is cited (by the interviewer) for the argument that the Haitian Revolution is the fulfillment and highest expression of the French Revolution; Žižek enthusiastically agrees.
Amartya Sen's book is invoked (by the interviewer) for the argument that democracy and human rights are universal, found in every tradition, Žižek endorses the position.
People invoked 39
Mentioned by the interviewer in passing as a figure they had discussed common decency and political strategy with.
Samuel Huntington negative
Žižek mocks the Clash of Civilizations thesis as 'Huntington's disease' and argues the real clash is within each civilization, not between them.
Thomas Jefferson negative
Žižek criticizes Jefferson for saying 'stupid things' against Toussaint Louverture, showing the limits of even left-leaning founding fathers' universalism.
Mahatma Gandhi negative
Cited by the interviewer as too ambiguous on caste, Gandhi's 'all children of God' formula preserved the structure of caste rather than abolishing it.
Narendra Modi negative
Mentioned as the face of Neo-Hinduist Indian identity politics that Žižek contrasts with the universalist tradition of Ambedkar.
Amartya Sen positive
Žižek approvingly cites Sen's argument against Asian-values authoritarianism, that democracy and human rights are universal and present in all traditions, not a Western imposition.
Edward Snowden positive
Listed among whistleblowers whose revelations demonstrate that the real enemy of freedom is the NSA-corporate surveillance network, not corrupt individuals.
Xi Jinping negative
Žižek describes Xi's regime as enforcing a return to Marxism in print while arresting those who actually read and apply it, and as suppressing student-worker organizing.
Cited (by the interviewer) as having explicitly modeled Chinese reform on Singapore, revealing the authoritarian-capitalist aspiration at the heart of Chinese development.
Boris Johnson negative
Žižek predicts Johnson may win the election due to Labour's Brexit mismanagement and identifies him as fully aware that Brexit means UK dependence on the US.
Abdullah Öcalan positive
Žižek notes that Öcalan, imprisoned PKK leader, turned to feminism in prison and now proposes sexual openness, evidence of the genuine emancipatory transformation in the Kurdish movement.
Toussaint Louverture positive
Žižek presents Louverture and the Haitian revolutionaries as the agents who universalized the French Revolution by expanding it beyond Europe.
Žižek calls him 'sub-human entity' but insists the focus on his individual corruption misses the structural point, Trump exploited real inconsistencies in liberalism and should be studied, not just mocked.
B. R. Ambedkar positive
The interviewer cites Ambedkar as the low-caste figure who embraced Buddhism to reject the caste system and propose universalism, contrasted favorably with Gandhi's ambiguity.
Mike Pence negative
Žižek says he is 'almost more afraid' of Pence than Trump if Trump is impeached.
Álvaro García Linera positive
Žižek calls him a 'true genius' and 'a very good theoretician' with no illusions, a personal acquaintance he regards as the brains behind Bolivia's radical-pragmatic left governance.
Jeremy Corbyn positive
Žižek broadly supports Corbyn as part of the new decent left but criticizes Labour's catastrophic management of Brexit under his leadership.
Chelsea Manning positive
Listed among whistleblowers whose work reveals structural unfreedom in state apparatuses.
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi negative
Žižek jokes about his name while noting his regime is worse than Mubarak's by liberal standards, lower standard of living, more poverty, no tolerated leftist opposition.
Used as a comparative baseline: even under Mubarak, small Marxist journals were permitted, while the Sisi regime that replaced him is worse by liberal human-rights standards.
Adolf Hitler negative
Used to demolish the multiculturalist 'enemy = story not heard' saying: were the Nazis our enemy because we didn't listen to Hitler's story? All terrible regimes had sincere poetic narratives.
Bernie Sanders positive
Žižek calls him a 'true genius' for targeting disappointed lower-middle-class Trump voters, fully endorses his program as the right left strategy, and defends supporting him sincerely rather than as a first step toward socialism.
Julian Assange positive
Listed among whistleblowers (with Manning and Snowden) whose revelations show the real threat is structural surveillance, not individual corruption.
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva positive
Žižek includes Lula in the group of decent, genuinely left leaders he supports, alongside Sanders and Corbyn.
Evo Morales positive
Žižek supports Morales as an example of pragmatic radical left governance in Bolivia, though credits much of the theoretical genius to vice president García Linera.
Malcolm X positive
Žižek calls him 'one of my heroes,' uses his 'X' as a philosophical concept for the generative power of lack of particular identity to open toward radical universalism.
Kurt Vonnegut positive
The interviewer tentatively attributes to Vonnegut the saying that 'appearances are ultimately all that we have' in politics, Žižek endorses the point.
Angela Nagle positive
Žižek says he 'deeply respects her' despite her being 'hated by much of the left,' and endorses her argument that the alt-right has appropriated brutal mocking obscenities.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez positive
Žižek welcomes AOC and 'The Squad' supporting Sanders as bridging the young feminist/progressive generation with Bernie's old white man demographic, his 'formula of paradise.'
Mentioned as context for Poland's similar depoliticization strategy after Jaruzelski's coup d'état, parallel to Yugoslavia.
Mentioned in the context of Sudan: the interviewer notes his removal was good but that essentially a coup followed, demonstrating the morning-after problem.
The interviewer references Žižek's debate with Peterson, noting Žižek's psychoanalytic critique of politically correct white liberals as centering themselves as universal subject.
Ras Baraka positive
Žižek mentions Baraka, radical Black mayor (of Newark), as evidence of his good relations with radical Black circles, used to illustrate how those groups can distinguish genuine offense from breaking-the-ice vulgarity.
Barack Obama negative
Žižek uses the 'yes we can' / 'yes we scan' wordplay to expose how Obama's emancipatory promise transformed into surveillance-state expansion.
C. L. R. James positive
The interviewer cites James's 'Black Jacobins' to argue the Haitian Revolution is the highest expression of the French Revolution, Žižek enthusiastically endorses this thesis.
Vladimir Putin negative
Listed alongside China, India, Turkey, and Trump's US as examples of the authoritarian-nationalist global trend Žižek opposes.
Žižek acknowledges Chavez had good intentions in Venezuela but argues he failed to create a genuinely functioning alternative economic model.
Joseph Stalin negative
Cited as an example of the totalitarian leader who performed private warmth (liking cats, children) while committing public horrors, the inverse of the Joker's honest pure-mask.
Tony Blair negative
Žižek criticizes Blair's government for opposing EU minimum holiday and maximum working-hours regulations on competitiveness grounds.
What it argues
left populism vs. cultural political correctnessthe Singapore model: authoritarian capitalism as global trendTrump as symptom of liberal failure, not individual aberrationuniversal emancipation from within particular traditionsthe morning-after problem of revolutionary euphoriaRojava and Kurdish feminism as a genuine glimmer of hopestructural unfreedom vs. individual corruption
Dialectical moves 10
“The true danger is not corrupted individuals who misuse state power—the true evil is inscribed into the very functioning of our state machinery and apparatuses.”
Žižek inverts the liberal-impeachment logic: focusing on individual corruption obscures the structural unfreedom built into the system itself.
“Far from being a clash between civilizations, there is a clash within each civilization.”
Žižek reverses Huntington: the real antagonism is not external (civilizations vs. each other) but internal (emancipatory vs. oppressive traditions within each civilization).
“The true leader is not the one who knows better than you what you want—the true leader is the one who makes you aware of what you are capable of, of your freedoms.”
Žižek inverts the authoritarian conception of leadership: the genuine leader serves freedom rather than substituting their own will for the people's.
“'Yes we can' became 'yes we scan.'”
Obama's emancipatory slogan is revealed to be its opposite, mass surveillance, demonstrating how the promise of liberal politics transforms into control.
“Malcolm X's X—the lack of particular identity—far from being a wound to be healed, gives Blacks a unique chance to propose a more radical universalism than white man's universalism.”
What appears as deprivation and loss (erasure of African roots) is recast as the very condition of possibility for a superior universal emancipatory project.
“It is only through the Haiti Revolution that the French Revolution became a truly universal world-historical event—without it, it would have been just some European thing.”
The universal (French Revolution) achieves its universality only through the particular that seems to be its marginal supplement (Haiti), the peripheral becomes the condition of the center.
“White liberals, while renouncing their own identity and supporting the identity of others, are performing a racist trick—they secretly reserve the universal dimension for themselves.”
Anti-racist self-abnegation is revealed as its opposite: the very gesture of championing minority particularity conceals white retention of the universal.
“Joker is just his mask—there is nothing beneath it. No warm human person. And this is the moment of truth.”
Against the totalitarian logic where public cruelty is redeemed by private warmth, Žižek finds in Joker's pure-mask existence a more honest form: the outside is all there is.
“To get rid of Trump, we have to move a little further to the left—the paradox of politics is that to get a real majority, the path is not compromise but to radicalize things.”
The centrist logic of occupying the middle to win is inverted: radicalization, not moderation, is what reshifts the playing field and creates new majorities.
“Kurds, whom we automatically perceive as primitive tribal people, are in fact the most secular, modern part of Turkish society.”
The Orientalist/primitivist perception of Kurds is reversed: they are the bearer of modernity in a region drowning in corrupt nationalist sovereignty.
Claims 23
asserts
Yugoslav and Chinese authorities deliberately permitted drugs, pornography, and religious escapism to depoliticize the younger generation rather than using overt ideological indoctrination.socialist state ideology and social control
asserts
China's recent messaging to Western governments implicitly offers a solidarity pact of those in power against popular unrest, setting aside ideological differences.geopolitics and ruling-class solidarity
asserts
The left today has a unique opportunity to present itself as the true moral majority defending common decency against postmodern obscenity now captured by the alt-right.left political strategy
asserts
Bernie Sanders' genius is targeting disappointed lower-middle-class people who might otherwise vote Trump, not just the progressive base.Bernie Sanders and electoral strategy
asserts
Bernie Sanders' program is far more modest than standard mid-20th-century European social democracy, showing how much the political center of gravity has shifted rightward.the current political spectrum and social democracy
asserts
Brexit under Labour's management has been catastrophic and will lead to the UK becoming more economically dependent on the US, moving toward the Singapore model rather than Swedish social democracy.Brexit and Labour Party strategy
asserts
White liberal anti-racism secretly reserves the universal dimension for white people while only permitting ethnic minorities to have particular cultural identities.white liberal identity politics and racism
asserts
Malcolm X's insight is that the 'X'—the deprivation of particular African identity—gives Black people a unique chance to propose a more radical universalism, not to fill it with a new identity.Black universalism and Malcolm X
rejects
Against Huntington, there is a clash within each civilization between emancipatory and oppressive traditions, not between civilizations.Huntington's Clash of Civilizations
asserts
The Haiti Revolution is what made the French Revolution a truly universal world-historical event rather than just a European affair.the Haiti Revolution and universal history
asserts
China's explosive economic development was achieved through the combination of brutal market competition and strong authoritarian state—the true horror of the 20th century left on both sides.Chinese capitalism and authoritarian development
asserts
The Singapore model—global market plus authoritarian nationalism—is the direction the whole world is heading today.global political-economic trends
asserts
Venezuela's tragedy is not only US meddling but Chavez's failure to invent a genuinely functioning alternative economic model.Venezuela and the Latin American left
asserts
Bolivia under Evo Morales (and vice president García Linera) is an authentic left success story, combining radical measures with pragmatic responsibility.Bolivia and authentic left governance
asserts
The crucial test of any revolution is not the euphoric moment of mass protest but whether ordinary people feel the change in everyday life the morning after.revolutionary politics and mass movements
asserts
Intellectuals need to provide vision and orientation because ordinary people, while deserving respect, are confused and cannot supply the answers to complex political-ecological crises on their own.the role of intellectuals vs. populism
reframes
The real problem with Trump is not his personal corruption but what is wrong with liberal society that gave birth to him—Trump exploited inherent inconsistencies in the liberal vision.Trump and liberalism's crisis
asserts
The true threat to freedom is not corrupt individuals misusing state power but the unfreedom structurally embedded in state and corporate apparatuses (NSA, Facebook, Google).surveillance, state power, and structural unfreedom
asserts
To defeat Trump, the left must move further left rather than to the center, because Trump won precisely by radicalizing and reshifting the playing field.electoral strategy against Trump
rejects
The multiculturalist saying 'an enemy is a person whose story we were not ready to listen to' is dangerously stupid—horrible regimes always constructed sincere, poetic, religious justifications for their horrors.multiculturalist empathy and the logic of understanding enemies
asserts
The Joker film's moment of truth is that Joker is only his mask—there is no warm human inner side—as opposed to totalitarian leaders who claimed private warmth while committing public horrors.the Joker film and the logic of masks vs. inner selves
asserts
Kurds of Rojava, far from being a primitive tribal force, are the most secular modern part of Turkish society and represent the only genuine glimmer of emancipatory hope in the region.Rojava and Kurdish politics
rejects
Labour's view that a Britain free from EU regulation could impose more radical pro-worker policies is mistaken—Brexit under Johnson means closer dependence on the US, not more radicalism.left-Brexit argument
Quotes 17
“Let's forget all the crap about socialism. We are in power, you are in power. Shouldn't we combat unrest and dissatisfaction together?”Slavoj Žižek · ruling-class solidarity pact beyond ideology
“We, we the left are the true moral majority. We are for the decency of the common man.”Slavoj Žižek · the left reclaiming moral majority from the right
“What half a century ago in Europe was the standard moderate even social democracy is now considered as one way to Venezuela.”Slavoj Žižek · rightward shift of the political center of gravity
“White liberals like Blacks, Native Americans and so on to develop their cultural identity... They like the others to be particular.”Slavoj Žižek · white liberal racism via particularism
“this X, the lack of particular identity, gives us Blacks a unique chance to propose our own universalism which will be more radical and better than white man's universalism.”Slavoj Žižek · Malcolm X's X as opening for radical universalism
“it's only through Haiti Revolution that the French Revolution became a truly universal world historical event. Without that it would be just just some European thing.”Slavoj Žižek · Haiti as the universalizing supplement of the French Revolution
“There is a clash within each civilization.”Slavoj Žižek · internal antagonism replaces civilizational clash
“My question is: what happens the morning after when this drunkenness with big events is over? How do ordinary people feel the change when things return to normal?”Slavoj Žižek · the morning-after test of revolution
“A true leader is not the one who knows better than you what do you want. A true leader is the one who makes you aware of what you are able of, of your freedoms.”Slavoj Žižek · true leadership as freedom-enabling rather than paternalist
“'yes we can,' 'yes we can' became 'yes we scan' through scanning the documents.”Slavoj Žižek · Obama's emancipatory promise revealed as surveillance
“The true evil—by evil, I simply mean new forms of servitude, control, domination—are inscribed into the very functioning of our state machinery apparatuses.”Slavoj Žižek · structural unfreedom vs. individual corruption
“What was wrong with our liberal societies that it gave birth to horror like Trump? Trump didn't fall from the moon.”Slavoj Žižek · Trump as symptom of liberal failure
“Sometimes the paradox of politics is to get real majority, the path is not 'let's be in the middle compromise' but to radicalize things a little bit.”Slavoj Žižek · radicalization as the path to majority, not centrism
“Joker is just his mask. There is nothing beneath his mask. No warm human person and so on. And this is for me the moment of truth.”Slavoj Žižek · the truth of pure exteriority against the ideology of inner warmth
“an enemy is the person who to whose story we were not ready to listen. I say, 'Hello, are you serious?' So Hitler was our enemy because we were not ready to listen to his story?”Slavoj Žižek · the stupidity of the multiculturalist empathy formula
“We perceive automatically because we were fed by these stories, Kurds as some primitive tribal part. No, they are the most secular modern part of Turkish society.”Slavoj Žižek · reversal of Orientalist perception of Kurds
“They are the only glimmer of hope in that area where all other stations around are again just drowning in their patriotic national totally be corrupted sovereignty.”Slavoj Žižek · Rojava as the lone emancipatory exception in the region
Transcript 51 turns
unknown
Thank you for being on TMBS. Pleasure is mine, the pleasure is mine. In the former Yugoslavia, why did the authorities permit drug use?
Thank you for being on TMBS. Pleasure is mine, the pleasure is mine. In the former Yugoslavia, why did the authorities permit drug use?
Slavoj Žižek
It was part of a complicated complex and quite intelligent strategy. The same thing happened in—it’s interesting to learn—my Polish friends were telling me after Jaruzelski's coup d'état in The idea was anything should be permitted just so that it keeps the younger generation especially depoliticized. So it was drugs, it was pornography, which was instantly legalized in Ex-Yugoslavia in early 80s, and religious obscurantism: New Age oriental wisdom, meditation and so on and so on. Anything goes just to keep the younger generation depoliticized. It was quite an interesting strategy, you know. Did it work? Not quite, but for some time it did. But not quite. But what is so interesting is how—and I think one should now approach it from a certain distance—how so-called really existing socialism effectively worked. It was a totally different strategy. You know, people in the West think we were brainwashed all the time into official propaganda. No. Even those in power did not take the official propaganda seriously. And you know where we find the same thing even in a harsher form to go to actual events, not to get lost in old Yugoslav nostalgia. I am now half-prohibited in China because I signed some letters of protest. It’s not so much Hong Kong what goes on there, it’s more Marxist students being arrested there. Now Xi, or whatever you pronounce it, their president, on the one hand tries to enforce a kind of return to Marxism, you know. They are reprinting in hundreds of thousand of copies works of Marx, Lenin, Mao, blah blah. But friends are telling me at the same time it’s considered extremely risky, even dangerous, if you actually read these works. Because then they are afraid it may happen what is now happening. Young students read this, say, "Okay, working class movement, what can we do for our workers?" and they get connected then with many factories around Beijing, chemical factories where of course workers get poisoned and so on and so on. And this is the worst thing you can do in China today.
It was part of a complicated complex and quite intelligent strategy. The same thing happened in—it’s interesting to learn—my Polish friends were telling me after Jaruzelski's coup d'état in The idea was anything should be permitted just so that it keeps the younger generation especially depoliticized. So it was drugs, it was pornography, which was instantly legalized in Ex-Yugoslavia in early 80s, and religious obscurantism: New Age oriental wisdom, meditation and so on and so on. Anything goes just to keep the younger generation depoliticized. It was quite an interesting strategy, you know. Did it work? Not quite, but for some time it did. But not quite. But what is so interesting is how—and I think one should now approach it from a certain distance—how so-called really existing socialism effectively worked. It was a totally different strategy. You know, people in the West think we were brainwashed all the time into official propaganda. No. Even those in power did not take the official propaganda seriously. And you know where we find the same thing even in a harsher form to go to actual events, not to get lost in old Yugoslav nostalgia. I am now half-prohibited in China because I signed some letters of protest. It’s not so much Hong Kong what goes on there, it’s more Marxist students being arrested there. Now Xi, or whatever you pronounce it, their president, on the one hand tries to enforce a kind of return to Marxism, you know. They are reprinting in hundreds of thousand of copies works of Marx, Lenin, Mao, blah blah. But friends are telling me at the same time it’s considered extremely risky, even dangerous, if you actually read these works. Because then they are afraid it may happen what is now happening. Young students read this, say, "Okay, working class movement, what can we do for our workers?" and they get connected then with many factories around Beijing, chemical factories where of course workers get poisoned and so on and so on. And this is the worst thing you can do in China today.
unknown
The worst thing you can do in China is actually read Marx. Marx,
The worst thing you can do in China is actually read Marx. Marx,
Slavoj Žižek
even even some of Mao, Mao’s texts and so on. Incidentally this may interest your readers, I found so fascinating it was today’s or yesterday’s news how Chinese state agencies are now in a publicity offensive warning the West. They are saying, "You see, you supported Hong Kong unrest, now it’s returning to you. You have also dissatisfaction, unrest, sorry, in Chile, in Spain and so on and so on." What shocked me so much is that if you ignore the official rhetorics they are really offering to those in power in the West a kind of solidarity pact. Their true message is: "Let's forget all the crap about socialism. We are in power, you are in power. Shouldn’t we combat unrest and dissatisfaction together?" It’s a kind of a call to solidarity of solidarity to those in power. It’s very interesting. Do you think when you look at the protests across the globe today whether it be in Hong Kong or Chile or Haiti or Ecuador do you think of the work that you did on Lenin and the different conceptions of freedom because it seems to me that some of the protests are about protecting liberal rights that have been established in Hong Kong as an example. And I support them. I always say that. I would be incredibly hypocritical to sit in Brooklyn and oppose them. And then others are economic. Me also, yes. But let me interrupt you. I am well informed
even even some of Mao, Mao’s texts and so on. Incidentally this may interest your readers, I found so fascinating it was today’s or yesterday’s news how Chinese state agencies are now in a publicity offensive warning the West. They are saying, "You see, you supported Hong Kong unrest, now it’s returning to you. You have also dissatisfaction, unrest, sorry, in Chile, in Spain and so on and so on." What shocked me so much is that if you ignore the official rhetorics they are really offering to those in power in the West a kind of solidarity pact. Their true message is: "Let's forget all the crap about socialism. We are in power, you are in power. Shouldn’t we combat unrest and dissatisfaction together?" It’s a kind of a call to solidarity of solidarity to those in power. It’s very interesting. Do you think when you look at the protests across the globe today whether it be in Hong Kong or Chile or Haiti or Ecuador do you think of the work that you did on Lenin and the different conceptions of freedom because it seems to me that some of the protests are about protecting liberal rights that have been established in Hong Kong as an example. And I support them. I always say that. I would be incredibly hypocritical to sit in Brooklyn and oppose them. And then others are economic. Me also, yes. But let me interrupt you. I am well informed
unknown
from friends in Hong Kong. You know
from friends in Hong Kong. You know
Slavoj Žižek
that the version that we get in our media is not quite fair. There was from the beginning a clear class dimension. Those who began protesting in Hong Kong were mostly from not really poor but nonetheless poorer sections. Their and their target were the new rich, Chinese rich who collaborate quite well with Chinese authorities and so on and so on. Only later they
that the version that we get in our media is not quite fair. There was from the beginning a clear class dimension. Those who began protesting in Hong Kong were mostly from not really poor but nonetheless poorer sections. Their and their target were the new rich, Chinese rich who collaborate quite well with Chinese authorities and so on and so on. Only later they
unknown
they made this
they made this
Slavoj Žižek
slight move into you know all those stupidities "Trump save us," singing "God save the Queen" and so on and so on. But there is also a social dimension even there. Don’t underestimate it. It’s not a pure liberal protest. There's a social dimension even there.
slight move into you know all those stupidities "Trump save us," singing "God save the Queen" and so on and so on. But there is also a social dimension even there. Don’t underestimate it. It’s not a pure liberal protest. There's a social dimension even there.
unknown
That's fascinating. What do you what do you think? Are you are you as enthusiastic as all the rest of us about Bernie Sanders in general but also I'm very interested in what you think of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn and I would also put President Lula who's a political prisoner as voices of sort of social democratic policies but actually of a certain um kind of moral decency in the face of the decadent
That's fascinating. What do you what do you think? Are you are you as enthusiastic as all the rest of us about Bernie Sanders in general but also I'm very interested in what you think of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn and I would also put President Lula who's a political prisoner as voices of sort of social democratic policies but actually of a certain um kind of moral decency in the face of the decadent
Slavoj Žižek
new right. It’s extremely important what you say now. I follow here somebody who is hated by much of the left today unfortunately in the United States but I still deeply respect her. How do you pronounce her name? The one who wrote "Kill All Normies." Oh Angela Nagle. Yeah. Her point is that today the alt-right is the one who appropriated this brutal mocking obscenities and so on and so on. And I think I like—this is crucial what you said theoretically even when you said common decency and so on and so on—I think it’s not too risky now the left has the unique chance to address all those ordinary people and so on and say, "Sorry guys, can’t you see the postmodern obscenity undermining of values, Christian values that you deplore so much? These guys are in power. We, we the left are the true moral majority. We are for the decency of the common man and so on and so on." It’s a unique chance. I my point would be that this is the true genius of of Bernie Sanders. As somebody who is close to him—I always as an old Stalinist have underground contacts there—he told he told me Bernie’s target are not these mid-level Democrats. He wants to get at those disappointed lower middle class people who otherwise would have voted for Trump. He targets exactly those. That's why it's so important. I almost cried when "The Squad"—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and so on—when they decided to support Bernie for purely generational reasons. So that it’s not just this young feminist gay rights generation. My formula of paradise is this younger radical generation connected with the representative of precisely old white men. Bernie is an old white man and it should be a proof to all of us that they we should fight for them. They should be our allies. My last point here—don’t be afraid I will not get lost—is that I agree with what you said before social democratic politics and so on and so on and that's crucial. Look closely at the program of Bernie, even what Lula did and Jeremy Corbyn and so on. Measure it with standards of what went on in Europe half a century ago at that high point of welfare state. Well, compare Bernie Sanders' program with Swedish social democracy, Olof Palme and so on. He is much more modest than they. So here we can measure the state of things today. What half a century ago in Europe was the standard moderate even social democracy is now considered as one way to Venezuela or whatever you call it and so on. That’s why I think we should fully support them. Although we should also criticize them. By them I mean not so much Bernie as Corbyn. That’s but that's another specific point. I think that the way Labour Party is managing Brexit is catastrophic. At the end I predict Boris Johnson may win. But generally I think we today we don’t have to be extra radical. We don’t have to support Bernie with this secret manipulative calculation, "Yeah, he is the first step, then we will grab power, introduce some socialism." No. Just be sincerely for Bernie. It’s enough. You know it reminds me of what you're talking about with because and I think it's it's a distinction we're going to have to draw strategically. I was talking about this with Adolph Reed. I mean it becomes really quite simple because the common decency of course also actually cuts across you know people think that they that it's only in certain areas that people support as an example equity for gay, lesbian and transgender people. That's totally false. And I'm always reminded of this very interesting study that was released and if I remember it correctly I'll paraphrase it but most Americans across all groups didn't like political correctness. And what they meant by political well they broke it down. Conservatives meant civil rights and so on because they oppose that. But other Americans just meant social they just meant basically being uptight and complaining about comedy and having speech codes and all of this sort of thing. There was one other thing though in the study that was even more unpopular than political correctness and that was hate speech. And that to me was like right, this is exactly where people actually are. You can persuade them on the grounds of justice, decency and equity that has a very broad appeal outside of the specific cultural manifestations of different sorts of politics. Not as a matter of substance but as a matter of style really. Yeah but I totally agree with you and I will even give a slightly different but in accordance with
new right. It’s extremely important what you say now. I follow here somebody who is hated by much of the left today unfortunately in the United States but I still deeply respect her. How do you pronounce her name? The one who wrote "Kill All Normies." Oh Angela Nagle. Yeah. Her point is that today the alt-right is the one who appropriated this brutal mocking obscenities and so on and so on. And I think I like—this is crucial what you said theoretically even when you said common decency and so on and so on—I think it’s not too risky now the left has the unique chance to address all those ordinary people and so on and say, "Sorry guys, can’t you see the postmodern obscenity undermining of values, Christian values that you deplore so much? These guys are in power. We, we the left are the true moral majority. We are for the decency of the common man and so on and so on." It’s a unique chance. I my point would be that this is the true genius of of Bernie Sanders. As somebody who is close to him—I always as an old Stalinist have underground contacts there—he told he told me Bernie’s target are not these mid-level Democrats. He wants to get at those disappointed lower middle class people who otherwise would have voted for Trump. He targets exactly those. That's why it's so important. I almost cried when "The Squad"—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and so on—when they decided to support Bernie for purely generational reasons. So that it’s not just this young feminist gay rights generation. My formula of paradise is this younger radical generation connected with the representative of precisely old white men. Bernie is an old white man and it should be a proof to all of us that they we should fight for them. They should be our allies. My last point here—don’t be afraid I will not get lost—is that I agree with what you said before social democratic politics and so on and so on and that's crucial. Look closely at the program of Bernie, even what Lula did and Jeremy Corbyn and so on. Measure it with standards of what went on in Europe half a century ago at that high point of welfare state. Well, compare Bernie Sanders' program with Swedish social democracy, Olof Palme and so on. He is much more modest than they. So here we can measure the state of things today. What half a century ago in Europe was the standard moderate even social democracy is now considered as one way to Venezuela or whatever you call it and so on. That’s why I think we should fully support them. Although we should also criticize them. By them I mean not so much Bernie as Corbyn. That’s but that's another specific point. I think that the way Labour Party is managing Brexit is catastrophic. At the end I predict Boris Johnson may win. But generally I think we today we don’t have to be extra radical. We don’t have to support Bernie with this secret manipulative calculation, "Yeah, he is the first step, then we will grab power, introduce some socialism." No. Just be sincerely for Bernie. It’s enough. You know it reminds me of what you're talking about with because and I think it's it's a distinction we're going to have to draw strategically. I was talking about this with Adolph Reed. I mean it becomes really quite simple because the common decency of course also actually cuts across you know people think that they that it's only in certain areas that people support as an example equity for gay, lesbian and transgender people. That's totally false. And I'm always reminded of this very interesting study that was released and if I remember it correctly I'll paraphrase it but most Americans across all groups didn't like political correctness. And what they meant by political well they broke it down. Conservatives meant civil rights and so on because they oppose that. But other Americans just meant social they just meant basically being uptight and complaining about comedy and having speech codes and all of this sort of thing. There was one other thing though in the study that was even more unpopular than political correctness and that was hate speech. And that to me was like right, this is exactly where people actually are. You can persuade them on the grounds of justice, decency and equity that has a very broad appeal outside of the specific cultural manifestations of different sorts of politics. Not as a matter of substance but as a matter of style really. Yeah but I totally agree with you and I will even give a slightly different but in accordance with
unknown
your point point to it. You know, often in politics—which, who was the writer who said this? I think Kurt Vonnegut—he said we should be very careful with appearances because appearances are ultimately all that we have. In politics there is always a substance in style, you know. Because style is the way we do what we do. And politics is never simply neutral. Like "we want that goal and then you can kill, lie, whatever for that goal." No. The goal must be realized already in the very way you are, in the very way you are doing it. That’s why I think it’s crucial what it’s crucial what you say. And to be quite open here, my critical remarks against political correctness of course do not absolutely not target their goals and so on. It’s just I sometimes feel that the approach, the way they do it, this tight regulations, the spirit of suspicion, horror at humor, always this obsession, "My God, if I use that expression, who will be hurt?" and so on and so on. I will give you just so that I don’t get lost a simple example. Sometimes I’m criticized as being insensitive to race or even Islamophobic and so on. But I noticed that these reproaches never came to me from these groups allegedly offended by me. I learned just now that my "Against Double Blackmail" book that is was translated in pirated editions in Lebanon and in Egypt. It’s very popular then. They are inviting me there. They like me there. I am in permanent contact with radical Black circles in New York. The other side of where you are, which means Newark and so on,
your point point to it. You know, often in politics—which, who was the writer who said this? I think Kurt Vonnegut—he said we should be very careful with appearances because appearances are ultimately all that we have. In politics there is always a substance in style, you know. Because style is the way we do what we do. And politics is never simply neutral. Like "we want that goal and then you can kill, lie, whatever for that goal." No. The goal must be realized already in the very way you are, in the very way you are doing it. That’s why I think it’s crucial what it’s crucial what you say. And to be quite open here, my critical remarks against political correctness of course do not absolutely not target their goals and so on. It’s just I sometimes feel that the approach, the way they do it, this tight regulations, the spirit of suspicion, horror at humor, always this obsession, "My God, if I use that expression, who will be hurt?" and so on and so on. I will give you just so that I don’t get lost a simple example. Sometimes I’m criticized as being insensitive to race or even Islamophobic and so on. But I noticed that these reproaches never came to me from these groups allegedly offended by me. I learned just now that my "Against Double Blackmail" book that is was translated in pirated editions in Lebanon and in Egypt. It’s very popular then. They are inviting me there. They like me there. I am in permanent contact with radical Black circles in New York. The other side of where you are, which means Newark and so on,
unknown
where they have
where they have
Slavoj Žižek
now Baraka, a radical Black mayor and so on. I have very good relations with them. It’s typical how white liberals worry, "Will they be offended?" and so on. My God, allow them what me whenever I have contacts with these groups I discover that they can immediately differentiate between—or I will call them, it may be problematic to some people, ordinary obscenities which are just a way to break the ice and to establish a true contact. They can immediately distinguish. It's I never had a problem between this and truly offensiveness. What people... In the debate... could I just jump in because this is interesting to me? In the debate with Jordan Peterson you actually critiqued some of this white politically correct attitude on very interesting grounds because it was psychoanalytical as I read it. But you also said what you're actually doing here whether you're being you know whether you're just being MAGA which is just being a you know racist and so on. Or, see I'm mimicking your speech patterns now. Or, or if you're in that woke mode but either way you're centering yourself as the universal subject and everything is filtering through your comfort system. Not a genuine multiplicity. Yes, that’s my now you put it wonderfully because you know what always makes me suspicious when I listen to these anti-racist white liberals is how in all the self-denigration: "Yes, we whites we are responsible for everything, colonialism, sexism, murder and so on," I mean ethnic cleansing and so on, at the same time while renouncing their identity and while fully supporting the identity of others, there is a racist trick in it. White liberals like Blacks, Native Americans and so on to develop their cultural identity. No. They should be allowed to do more, to define their own universality. White liberals secretly reserve the universal dimension for them. They like the others to be particular. Isn’t it wonderful to have Native Americans singing their song, dances, their food and so on and so on? That’s why, as you may have heard or read, my hero—maybe I’m exaggerating but I did read him—one of my heroes is Malcolm X. He saw this very clearly. His point of X is we Blacks were by being torn out of our communal space in Africa we were deprived of our particular identity, our roots. And his point is not let's fill in this X with a new identity. His point is explicitly: this X, the lack of particular identity, gives us Blacks a unique chance to propose our own universalism which will be more radical and better than white man’s universalism. And may I just I want to add one other example that I used recently for a book that I'm that I just finished actually. And this is a good, great liberal economist Amartya Sen who you know "Development as
now Baraka, a radical Black mayor and so on. I have very good relations with them. It’s typical how white liberals worry, "Will they be offended?" and so on. My God, allow them what me whenever I have contacts with these groups I discover that they can immediately differentiate between—or I will call them, it may be problematic to some people, ordinary obscenities which are just a way to break the ice and to establish a true contact. They can immediately distinguish. It's I never had a problem between this and truly offensiveness. What people... In the debate... could I just jump in because this is interesting to me? In the debate with Jordan Peterson you actually critiqued some of this white politically correct attitude on very interesting grounds because it was psychoanalytical as I read it. But you also said what you're actually doing here whether you're being you know whether you're just being MAGA which is just being a you know racist and so on. Or, see I'm mimicking your speech patterns now. Or, or if you're in that woke mode but either way you're centering yourself as the universal subject and everything is filtering through your comfort system. Not a genuine multiplicity. Yes, that’s my now you put it wonderfully because you know what always makes me suspicious when I listen to these anti-racist white liberals is how in all the self-denigration: "Yes, we whites we are responsible for everything, colonialism, sexism, murder and so on," I mean ethnic cleansing and so on, at the same time while renouncing their identity and while fully supporting the identity of others, there is a racist trick in it. White liberals like Blacks, Native Americans and so on to develop their cultural identity. No. They should be allowed to do more, to define their own universality. White liberals secretly reserve the universal dimension for them. They like the others to be particular. Isn’t it wonderful to have Native Americans singing their song, dances, their food and so on and so on? That’s why, as you may have heard or read, my hero—maybe I’m exaggerating but I did read him—one of my heroes is Malcolm X. He saw this very clearly. His point of X is we Blacks were by being torn out of our communal space in Africa we were deprived of our particular identity, our roots. And his point is not let's fill in this X with a new identity. His point is explicitly: this X, the lack of particular identity, gives us Blacks a unique chance to propose our own universalism which will be more radical and better than white man’s universalism. And may I just I want to add one other example that I used recently for a book that I'm that I just finished actually. And this is a good, great liberal economist Amartya Sen who you know "Development as
unknown
Freedom" and so on. And he went in the 1990s, he argued against the authoritarian governments in Malaysia and Singapore because they said "we have Asian values" and that meant "we don't allow freedom of assembly and speech" and so on. And then what he said is there are two positions: there are Western liberals who say the rest of the world needs to mimic the West in order to have democracy and human rights. Then these despot in Malaysia says "no because we have our own culture". What Sen did is he said: "of course democracy and human rights are universal and they are found in the universalities of any tradition on earth" and that's the work. Absolutely. Which means also that
Freedom" and so on. And he went in the 1990s, he argued against the authoritarian governments in Malaysia and Singapore because they said "we have Asian values" and that meant "we don't allow freedom of assembly and speech" and so on. And then what he said is there are two positions: there are Western liberals who say the rest of the world needs to mimic the West in order to have democracy and human rights. Then these despot in Malaysia says "no because we have our own culture". What Sen did is he said: "of course democracy and human rights are universal and they are found in the universalities of any tradition on earth" and that's the work. Absolutely. Which means also that
Slavoj Žižek
you put it very nicely which also means that against those who criticize me of subscribing to of subscribing to Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations," no, on on the contrary, mockingly I call the thesis of "Clash of Civilizations" today’s Hunt- Huntington’s disease or whatever I suppose. Yeah, it’s no, my point is, that’s my message to my Arab friends, Jewish friends, wherever, Blacks, Latino Americans: we have our fight here in the West. You have your own fight. It’s not for us to teach you. It’s for all of us to find a way to connect our fight with your fight. It must always be potentially a universal fight. So there is a clash within each civilization. And I’m here sometimes ironically sounding as Eurocentric. By this I mean the following: yes, Europe is colonialism and so on and so on, but sorry, in European tradition also a certain emancipatory legacy is present and it is on the basis of this legacy that we can today develop a very brutal and justified criticism of everything that is wrong in European tradition. So we should not be afraid to say, "Yes, we have our own tradition which is in itself split. There is a clash in our tradition." And I’m well aware how this clash is at work in other tradition. For example, when I was in India, I discovered a total split between official side—and this is in India not only Modi and this Neo-Hinduist but even some cultural theorists and so on who play Indian identity—and a much stronger political and cultural movement for universalization to use concrete names. It’s
you put it very nicely which also means that against those who criticize me of subscribing to of subscribing to Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations," no, on on the contrary, mockingly I call the thesis of "Clash of Civilizations" today’s Hunt- Huntington’s disease or whatever I suppose. Yeah, it’s no, my point is, that’s my message to my Arab friends, Jewish friends, wherever, Blacks, Latino Americans: we have our fight here in the West. You have your own fight. It’s not for us to teach you. It’s for all of us to find a way to connect our fight with your fight. It must always be potentially a universal fight. So there is a clash within each civilization. And I’m here sometimes ironically sounding as Eurocentric. By this I mean the following: yes, Europe is colonialism and so on and so on, but sorry, in European tradition also a certain emancipatory legacy is present and it is on the basis of this legacy that we can today develop a very brutal and justified criticism of everything that is wrong in European tradition. So we should not be afraid to say, "Yes, we have our own tradition which is in itself split. There is a clash in our tradition." And I’m well aware how this clash is at work in other tradition. For example, when I was in India, I discovered a total split between official side—and this is in India not only Modi and this Neo-Hinduist but even some cultural theorists and so on who play Indian identity—and a much stronger political and cultural movement for universalization to use concrete names. It’s
unknown
not just it’s not just the Gandhi tradition. There is also a chief figure in modern India, Ambedkar. Yeah. Who was for universalism, who said the defeat of Buddhism because he saw in Buddhism a much greater potential for universalism. Because he because he was low caste so he embraced Buddhism to reject the caste system. Yeah, you have this. While Gandhi, you know, he was here very ambiguous. He said they are all children of God. But this didn’t mean let abolish castes. This meant just let acknowledge the decency and the proper place to each of the caste. Sorry, this is not enough today. And in every culture we can find something we can find something like this. It reminds me also of as CLR James in one of my favorite books "Black Jacobins" he said the Haitian the Haitian Revolution is not only universal and of course a defeat of Western imperialism colonialism but it's also the fulfillment, it's the highest expression of the French Revolution.
not just it’s not just the Gandhi tradition. There is also a chief figure in modern India, Ambedkar. Yeah. Who was for universalism, who said the defeat of Buddhism because he saw in Buddhism a much greater potential for universalism. Because he because he was low caste so he embraced Buddhism to reject the caste system. Yeah, you have this. While Gandhi, you know, he was here very ambiguous. He said they are all children of God. But this didn’t mean let abolish castes. This meant just let acknowledge the decency and the proper place to each of the caste. Sorry, this is not enough today. And in every culture we can find something we can find something like this. It reminds me also of as CLR James in one of my favorite books "Black Jacobins" he said the Haitian the Haitian Revolution is not only universal and of course a defeat of Western imperialism colonialism but it's also the fulfillment, it's the highest expression of the French Revolution.
Slavoj Žižek
Absolutely. You put it so nicely and I closely study, I know, I’ve read books and so on on the Haiti Revolution. I even propose this thesis that it’s only through the Haiti Revolution—because Haitians consciously referred to French Revolution, they conceived themselves just as the expansion actualization of the French Revolution—but I claim it’s only through Haiti Revolution that the French Revolution became a truly universal world historical event. Without that it would be just just some European thing. But you know what’s so interesting how this was too much, unfortunately, even for the so-called left wing of the of the of the founding fathers of the United States. Even Thomas Jefferson, unfortunately, said some very stupid things against Toussaint Louverture. Of course. He was not universal to say the least. Why is why do you think Labor is messing up Brexit? I think they are split between two opposing views. One is—and I’m more inclined towards the first view—one is that nonetheless Europe guaranteed certain ecological, even even regulation of work, healthcare and so on standards. And I think there are good arguments for this work. I don’t believe this image of, you know, Brussels center, kind of gigantic bureaucratic machine which is just sabotaging progressive reforms. Listen, a friend of mine looked into the history of the conflicts between Central European bureaucracy and British government and if you look at these conflicts, you see that I’m almost all the time on the side of Brussels. For example, under Blair government, Brussels wanted to have to determine all around Europe a minimum of vacancies, how much—how do you call it—holiday, free time each worker be employed has to have, and a maximum of working hours per week. Protection of workers' rights. British government, Blair government, opposed it claiming this will limit our competitiveness and so on and so on. Then there were ecological measures and so on and so on. So this is one view. The other view—and I’m afraid some people in British Labour Party still subscribe to this view—the other view is that is that if Britain gets rich of the control of
Absolutely. You put it so nicely and I closely study, I know, I’ve read books and so on on the Haiti Revolution. I even propose this thesis that it’s only through the Haiti Revolution—because Haitians consciously referred to French Revolution, they conceived themselves just as the expansion actualization of the French Revolution—but I claim it’s only through Haiti Revolution that the French Revolution became a truly universal world historical event. Without that it would be just just some European thing. But you know what’s so interesting how this was too much, unfortunately, even for the so-called left wing of the of the of the founding fathers of the United States. Even Thomas Jefferson, unfortunately, said some very stupid things against Toussaint Louverture. Of course. He was not universal to say the least. Why is why do you think Labor is messing up Brexit? I think they are split between two opposing views. One is—and I’m more inclined towards the first view—one is that nonetheless Europe guaranteed certain ecological, even even regulation of work, healthcare and so on standards. And I think there are good arguments for this work. I don’t believe this image of, you know, Brussels center, kind of gigantic bureaucratic machine which is just sabotaging progressive reforms. Listen, a friend of mine looked into the history of the conflicts between Central European bureaucracy and British government and if you look at these conflicts, you see that I’m almost all the time on the side of Brussels. For example, under Blair government, Brussels wanted to have to determine all around Europe a minimum of vacancies, how much—how do you call it—holiday, free time each worker be employed has to have, and a maximum of working hours per week. Protection of workers' rights. British government, Blair government, opposed it claiming this will limit our competitiveness and so on and so on. Then there were ecological measures and so on and so on. So this is one view. The other view—and I’m afraid some people in British Labour Party still subscribe to this view—the other view is that is that if Britain gets rich of the control of
unknown
Brussels bureaucracy, it will be able to impose more radical pro-workers policy and so on and so on. I think not. I think it’s
Brussels bureaucracy, it will be able to impose more radical pro-workers policy and so on and so on. I think not. I think it’s
Slavoj Žižek
clear from what is happening now that—and it’s Boris Johnson is fully aware of this—that Brexit means that United Kingdom will be much more depending on the United States. Is it so it's like Singapore not Sweden. Yes, precisely. Yes. Because I—but you know what’s the problem. Let me now add something very pessimistic.
clear from what is happening now that—and it’s Boris Johnson is fully aware of this—that Brexit means that United Kingdom will be much more depending on the United States. Is it so it's like Singapore not Sweden. Yes, precisely. Yes. Because I—but you know what’s the problem. Let me now add something very pessimistic.
unknown
It’s very sad what I will say. Do you know that I’ve seen the video. Do you know when Deng Xiaoping began his reform, he visited Singapore and was so fascinated that he said, "This should be a model for all China, Singapore." And but you know what’s so sad, when right-wingers say communism failed and so on and so on, let’s admit it: what the Chinese succeeded in the last years is
It’s very sad what I will say. Do you know that I’ve seen the video. Do you know when Deng Xiaoping began his reform, he visited Singapore and was so fascinated that he said, "This should be a model for all China, Singapore." And but you know what’s so sad, when right-wingers say communism failed and so on and so on, let’s admit it: what the Chinese succeeded in the last years is
Slavoj Žižek
probably the most explosive economic development in the history of humanity. But how did they do it? By combining two things which were the true horror of the 20th century left everywhere. On the one hand, brutal, the most brutal market competition; on the other hand, strong authoritarian state. So the problem with Singapore model is that at a certain level it works. So we have to be—I’m totally opposed to it. I think this is a nightmare scenario. I think Singapore is the first sign where the world is moving today. Global market but at the same time strong authoritarian nationalist regimes and so on and so on from Putin to China to India to Turkey and now even to the United States. So again, it’s it’s the crucial question what I
probably the most explosive economic development in the history of humanity. But how did they do it? By combining two things which were the true horror of the 20th century left everywhere. On the one hand, brutal, the most brutal market competition; on the other hand, strong authoritarian state. So the problem with Singapore model is that at a certain level it works. So we have to be—I’m totally opposed to it. I think this is a nightmare scenario. I think Singapore is the first sign where the world is moving today. Global market but at the same time strong authoritarian nationalist regimes and so on and so on from Putin to China to India to Turkey and now even to the United States. So again, it’s it’s the crucial question what I
unknown
miss in today’s left. And that’s why I like the left which does not just criticize but as Bernie is doing, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is doing, but they are
miss in today’s left. And that’s why I like the left which does not just criticize but as Bernie is doing, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is doing, but they are
Slavoj Žižek
experimenting with different models. What to do with healthcare? What to do with this, with that? It’s absolutely important for the left to develop alternate models. I think this is the true tragedy—I will be very open here—of Venezuela. It’s not just, although it is mostly, American meddling, it’s clear that what Chavez while he was still in power tried to do was maybe good, but he didn’t really invent an alternate model that would be functioning. I’m not saying nothing works here. For example, if you ask me, I still think that an authentic success story—that’s why you don’t read a lot about it in the newspapers—is Bolivia. They are just slowly doing it in a very reasonable way, but nonetheless an great amount of emancipatory measures and so on and so on. You see, this is the left that I like. I have to say Slavoj really quick because I want to ask you two other things about this. Please do it, interrupt me. I need I need a sado-masochist mistress woman, you know. Interrupt me by all means, yeah. I just read the Financial Times profile of Evo Morales from a couple of days ago before the election and it was interesting because for the Financial Times it was quite sympathetic. And it's and what I do like I always appreciate that leaders like Evo and Lula they do in fact defeat so much stereotypes and so much bullshit in our narratives just simply by their their success and existence. And Evo had one point in the article where he's talking with the you know and he's out he's campaigning, they're eating pork together, all of you know he's very much a man of the people but then he looked and he said: "well you know what I've learned is fiscal management is very important." You know he said something that sounded like a banker on the top of cutting poverty in half and earning global respect. Yes. But again the left this is what I like and don’t forget
experimenting with different models. What to do with healthcare? What to do with this, with that? It’s absolutely important for the left to develop alternate models. I think this is the true tragedy—I will be very open here—of Venezuela. It’s not just, although it is mostly, American meddling, it’s clear that what Chavez while he was still in power tried to do was maybe good, but he didn’t really invent an alternate model that would be functioning. I’m not saying nothing works here. For example, if you ask me, I still think that an authentic success story—that’s why you don’t read a lot about it in the newspapers—is Bolivia. They are just slowly doing it in a very reasonable way, but nonetheless an great amount of emancipatory measures and so on and so on. You see, this is the left that I like. I have to say Slavoj really quick because I want to ask you two other things about this. Please do it, interrupt me. I need I need a sado-masochist mistress woman, you know. Interrupt me by all means, yeah. I just read the Financial Times profile of Evo Morales from a couple of days ago before the election and it was interesting because for the Financial Times it was quite sympathetic. And it's and what I do like I always appreciate that leaders like Evo and Lula they do in fact defeat so much stereotypes and so much bullshit in our narratives just simply by their their success and existence. And Evo had one point in the article where he's talking with the you know and he's out he's campaigning, they're eating pork together, all of you know he's very much a man of the people but then he looked and he said: "well you know what I've learned is fiscal management is very important." You know he said something that sounded like a banker on the top of cutting poverty in half and earning global respect. Yes. But again the left this is what I like and don’t forget
unknown
another person. I know him
another person. I know him
Slavoj Žižek
personally. We are even kind of friends. The true genius behind—I’m not denigrating Evo—is Álvaro García Linera, the vice president. A good theoretical. You should invite him once, my God, a very good theoretician and he has no illusions. For example, you know all that bullshit of let’s return to pre-modern traditions, old tribal councils, old Latino American native wisdoms. He has no illusions. He told me, "Yes, we did this. We have tribal representatives in La Paz with the government." But he said this can also open up another path of corruption and so on and so on. They they are very realist. That’s the left that I like. At the same time radical left, they do certain measures which hurt and so on and so on, but at the same time pragmatic, but not in the sense of dirty compromises, but in the sense of this basic responsibility. They know, "We are now in power. People don’t expect from us just big phrases and so on. They expect better life at everyday level and so on and so on." Because, you know, I’m getting in my old age sick and tired of this big events like Tahrir Square, Syntagma Square, million people on the street. Yeah yeah yeah. My question is: what happens the morning after when this drunkenness with big events is over? How do ordinary people feel the change when things return to normal? Don’t you agree that this is the crucial test? No absolutely. Well I mean not only is that the crucial test it's I mean a lot of those events which have been so inspiring and people have risked so much to do they end up I mean this is the situation in some ways right now in Sudan. There's incredible physical bravery extraordinary organizing. And then what happens is well Bashir is gone that's great but essentially it's a coup. Now the people are smart enough and strategic and brave enough to stay on the street because they know it's a coup but there still isn't that fundamental sort of shift. And the model for this is for me, for example, what happened with so-called Arab Spring in Egypt. Yes, they got democracy and they got Muslim brothers in power, and now all my friends are telling me the Sisi regime—the only thing I like about Sisi it’s his name, which indicates what he is, sorry for the vulgarity, I never can resist a joke. I was missing the vulgarity actually I was expecting more. The Sisi regime, they claim, is
personally. We are even kind of friends. The true genius behind—I’m not denigrating Evo—is Álvaro García Linera, the vice president. A good theoretical. You should invite him once, my God, a very good theoretician and he has no illusions. For example, you know all that bullshit of let’s return to pre-modern traditions, old tribal councils, old Latino American native wisdoms. He has no illusions. He told me, "Yes, we did this. We have tribal representatives in La Paz with the government." But he said this can also open up another path of corruption and so on and so on. They they are very realist. That’s the left that I like. At the same time radical left, they do certain measures which hurt and so on and so on, but at the same time pragmatic, but not in the sense of dirty compromises, but in the sense of this basic responsibility. They know, "We are now in power. People don’t expect from us just big phrases and so on. They expect better life at everyday level and so on and so on." Because, you know, I’m getting in my old age sick and tired of this big events like Tahrir Square, Syntagma Square, million people on the street. Yeah yeah yeah. My question is: what happens the morning after when this drunkenness with big events is over? How do ordinary people feel the change when things return to normal? Don’t you agree that this is the crucial test? No absolutely. Well I mean not only is that the crucial test it's I mean a lot of those events which have been so inspiring and people have risked so much to do they end up I mean this is the situation in some ways right now in Sudan. There's incredible physical bravery extraordinary organizing. And then what happens is well Bashir is gone that's great but essentially it's a coup. Now the people are smart enough and strategic and brave enough to stay on the street because they know it's a coup but there still isn't that fundamental sort of shift. And the model for this is for me, for example, what happened with so-called Arab Spring in Egypt. Yes, they got democracy and they got Muslim brothers in power, and now all my friends are telling me the Sisi regime—the only thing I like about Sisi it’s his name, which indicates what he is, sorry for the vulgarity, I never can resist a joke. I was missing the vulgarity actually I was expecting more. The Sisi regime, they claim, is
unknown
even from the purely liberal standpoint of human rights debate much
even from the purely liberal standpoint of human rights debate much
Slavoj Žižek
worse than Mubarak. Under Mubarak, leftist opposition
worse than Mubarak. Under Mubarak, leftist opposition
unknown
was allowed. There were some small very critical even Marxist journals and so on. It was modest, but now the situation, standard of living is lower, there is more poverty and so on and so on. I mean, it’s you you see we but now I will say a thing which will probably be problematic for you maybe even. It costs me a lot when I say this. You know, let’s not patronize so-called ordinary people. That’s my problem with with a populism. I don’t trust this old Maoist slogan: "Go to the people, mix with ordinary people" (in Mao’s case, this was farmers), "learn from them and so on." No. We are in such a complex crazy situation that—I’m not saying we intellectuals know it—but
was allowed. There were some small very critical even Marxist journals and so on. It was modest, but now the situation, standard of living is lower, there is more poverty and so on and so on. I mean, it’s you you see we but now I will say a thing which will probably be problematic for you maybe even. It costs me a lot when I say this. You know, let’s not patronize so-called ordinary people. That’s my problem with with a populism. I don’t trust this old Maoist slogan: "Go to the people, mix with ordinary people" (in Mao’s case, this was farmers), "learn from them and so on." No. We are in such a complex crazy situation that—I’m not saying we intellectuals know it—but
Slavoj Žižek
you will not get an answer from simply from ordinary people. Take ecology. What to do? It’s a big mess, we don’t know what to do. We will not learn the answer simply listening to the ordinary people. I don’t denigrate them. I respect them. But they are confused, they are at a loss, they lack orientation. And here I’m say this with certain arrogance—and I don’t mean me, I mean generally, I cannot do this—namely: we intellectuals have to provide a vision. People need leaders. Not in the authoritarian sense. I almost always emphasize this distinction. A true leader is not the one who knows better than you what do you want. A true leader is the one who makes you aware of what you are able of, of your freedoms. The true leader’s message is "yes you can," but not in the Obama sense. I was going to say: you want to revise Obama for the modern age. Yeah but you know what was the truth of Obama. Do you remember that wonderful play with words how "yes we can," "yes we can" became "yes we scan" through scanning the documents and so on. The last thing if I’m allowed, then you can cut me short. That’s why—not that I have, my God, he is sub-human entity, Trump—but I am not so at ease as it may appear with this impeachment attempts. Not because Trump is beneath contempt. My point is this one. What if we learned anything from great whistleblowers like Manning, Assange, Snowden? Yeah. The true threat to our freedoms does not come from
you will not get an answer from simply from ordinary people. Take ecology. What to do? It’s a big mess, we don’t know what to do. We will not learn the answer simply listening to the ordinary people. I don’t denigrate them. I respect them. But they are confused, they are at a loss, they lack orientation. And here I’m say this with certain arrogance—and I don’t mean me, I mean generally, I cannot do this—namely: we intellectuals have to provide a vision. People need leaders. Not in the authoritarian sense. I almost always emphasize this distinction. A true leader is not the one who knows better than you what do you want. A true leader is the one who makes you aware of what you are able of, of your freedoms. The true leader’s message is "yes you can," but not in the Obama sense. I was going to say: you want to revise Obama for the modern age. Yeah but you know what was the truth of Obama. Do you remember that wonderful play with words how "yes we can," "yes we can" became "yes we scan" through scanning the documents and so on. The last thing if I’m allowed, then you can cut me short. That’s why—not that I have, my God, he is sub-human entity, Trump—but I am not so at ease as it may appear with this impeachment attempts. Not because Trump is beneath contempt. My point is this one. What if we learned anything from great whistleblowers like Manning, Assange, Snowden? Yeah. The true threat to our freedoms does not come from
unknown
evil corrupted individuals who misuse their state power for their own interest and so on. The true evil—by evil, I simply mean new forms of servitude, control, domination—are inscribed into the very functioning of our state machinery apparatuses. For example, what NSA is doing connected
evil corrupted individuals who misuse their state power for their own interest and so on. The true evil—by evil, I simply mean new forms of servitude, control, domination—are inscribed into the very functioning of our state machinery apparatuses. For example, what NSA is doing connected
unknown
with Facebook, Google and so on and so on. An incredible new network of social control and manipulation is emerging here. So don’t make things easier and focus just on corrupted individuals. The true task today is
with Facebook, Google and so on and so on. An incredible new network of social control and manipulation is emerging here. So don’t make things easier and focus just on corrupted individuals. The true task today is
Slavoj Žižek
to discern the unfreedom embodied in how our state apparatuses function. That’s why I don’t like this easy story: "Oh, corrupted Trump." No. The problem the ultimately the problem is not corrupted Trump. The problem—again, my problem with just focusing on Trump is double. First, it’s not him, it’s the system. And point two: you know, I never trusted that liberal
to discern the unfreedom embodied in how our state apparatuses function. That’s why I don’t like this easy story: "Oh, corrupted Trump." No. The problem the ultimately the problem is not corrupted Trump. The problem—again, my problem with just focusing on Trump is double. First, it’s not him, it’s the system. And point two: you know, I never trusted that liberal
unknown
mocking "Trump jerk idiot" and so on. The big
mocking "Trump jerk idiot" and so on. The big
Slavoj Žižek
question is: what was wrong with our liberal societies that it gave birth to horror like Trump? Trump didn’t fall from the moon. Trump exploited certain inconsistencies, antagonisms which are already here, which are inherent to the predominant liberal vision. So my point is to really get rid of Trump, we on the side of freedom, dignity, human rights have to move a little bit further to the left. That's what Bernie says. That's what Bernie. Bernie says that in every speech. Yeah, Bernie is right against those Biden-type conformists who claim, "Let’s not move too much to the left, we must occupy the center." But my main argument against this is Trump himself. Trump won precisely by pushing things to the extreme on his side. Even the Republican establishment thought Trump is unelectable. You remember almost all the great established names of Republican Party said—Bush older, Bush younger and so on—they all said, "We will vote for Hillary" and so on. And it didn’t work. So let’s not that sometimes the paradox of politics is to get real majority, the path is not "let’s be in the middle compromise" but to radicalize things a little bit. Here true politics begins. To reshift the playing field. And also I would and I also really well just two more things because we only have a couple of minutes left but I just also think the other thing that's so important is that um his vulgarity and yes Trump's vulgarity and he's grotesque and he's evil and he's vulgar and all the rest every adjective and even people like me supported Clinton over him to and all the rest of it. The fact that he is also quite funny if the only option in a television and entertainment space if the
question is: what was wrong with our liberal societies that it gave birth to horror like Trump? Trump didn’t fall from the moon. Trump exploited certain inconsistencies, antagonisms which are already here, which are inherent to the predominant liberal vision. So my point is to really get rid of Trump, we on the side of freedom, dignity, human rights have to move a little bit further to the left. That's what Bernie says. That's what Bernie. Bernie says that in every speech. Yeah, Bernie is right against those Biden-type conformists who claim, "Let’s not move too much to the left, we must occupy the center." But my main argument against this is Trump himself. Trump won precisely by pushing things to the extreme on his side. Even the Republican establishment thought Trump is unelectable. You remember almost all the great established names of Republican Party said—Bush older, Bush younger and so on—they all said, "We will vote for Hillary" and so on. And it didn’t work. So let’s not that sometimes the paradox of politics is to get real majority, the path is not "let’s be in the middle compromise" but to radicalize things a little bit. Here true politics begins. To reshift the playing field. And also I would and I also really well just two more things because we only have a couple of minutes left but I just also think the other thing that's so important is that um his vulgarity and yes Trump's vulgarity and he's grotesque and he's evil and he's vulgar and all the rest every adjective and even people like me supported Clinton over him to and all the rest of it. The fact that he is also quite funny if the only option in a television and entertainment space if the
unknown
option is fake non-substantive moralism and appeals to
option is fake non-substantive moralism and appeals to
Slavoj Žižek
discredited sort of public reaffirmations of decency and all the stuff that people know is bullshit next to a guy who's incredibly funny and bizarre. Again the only alternative to me actually goes back to not matching it with its own thing on the left as funny as it would be but the fundamental decency we talked about in the beginning and that's Sanders again. Yes. But at the same time I would also say that you know one should really study Trump to learn how all this vulgarities and so on, these are parts of his working class appeal. This is how he establishes contact with ordinary people and so on. One has to beat him here not with some kind of a high-manners liberalism and so on and so on. That’s Trump’s strength. I think that the way to do it is not to make only fun of Trump’s vulgarities because he is not vulgar all the way through. For example, when he—and this is for me Trump at his most disgusting—doesn’t he usually at his shows when he speaks to his partisans followers embrace the American flag and so on. Right. You know all the the one should focus on points where he wants to appear sincere, "Now I’m really patriotic." And here he is the most ridiculous. One should make fun of him there, not when he uses vulgarities and so on and so on. Although it would be funny if if Bernie said that he wasn't well endowed. I would go for that. Yeah, but on the other hand, yeah yeah, I know, I know, I know. No, but but again I think that the situation in United States and in Europe, we are no better. What is happening now in Europe, it’s so serious that you know it’s not just a question of one election and so on. I think the way things are appearing now, if he will not be destroyed by this impeachment, then Trump may well get re-elected. And the nightmare is this one. Let’s say Trump is
discredited sort of public reaffirmations of decency and all the stuff that people know is bullshit next to a guy who's incredibly funny and bizarre. Again the only alternative to me actually goes back to not matching it with its own thing on the left as funny as it would be but the fundamental decency we talked about in the beginning and that's Sanders again. Yes. But at the same time I would also say that you know one should really study Trump to learn how all this vulgarities and so on, these are parts of his working class appeal. This is how he establishes contact with ordinary people and so on. One has to beat him here not with some kind of a high-manners liberalism and so on and so on. That’s Trump’s strength. I think that the way to do it is not to make only fun of Trump’s vulgarities because he is not vulgar all the way through. For example, when he—and this is for me Trump at his most disgusting—doesn’t he usually at his shows when he speaks to his partisans followers embrace the American flag and so on. Right. You know all the the one should focus on points where he wants to appear sincere, "Now I’m really patriotic." And here he is the most ridiculous. One should make fun of him there, not when he uses vulgarities and so on and so on. Although it would be funny if if Bernie said that he wasn't well endowed. I would go for that. Yeah, but on the other hand, yeah yeah, I know, I know, I know. No, but but again I think that the situation in United States and in Europe, we are no better. What is happening now in Europe, it’s so serious that you know it’s not just a question of one election and so on. I think the way things are appearing now, if he will not be destroyed by this impeachment, then Trump may well get re-elected. And the nightmare is this one. Let’s say Trump is
unknown
impeached. Whom do we get then?
impeached. Whom do we get then?
Slavoj Žižek
Your vice president, which is—I’m almost more afraid of him if you ask me, you know. He might be easier to beat though. I just want to say all right one final question and I hope first of all I hope you'll join us again in the future. Whenever you want. And I want to just tell everybody if you've watched this far: no I will not be asking Slavoj about the Joker. I don't care. Oh, about okay I agree because this is not a big theoretical, sorry, this is not a big political point, Joker. It’s just a theoretical point about why I don’t believe in—I’m not sure how
Your vice president, which is—I’m almost more afraid of him if you ask me, you know. He might be easier to beat though. I just want to say all right one final question and I hope first of all I hope you'll join us again in the future. Whenever you want. And I want to just tell everybody if you've watched this far: no I will not be asking Slavoj about the Joker. I don't care. Oh, about okay I agree because this is not a big theoretical, sorry, this is not a big political point, Joker. It’s just a theoretical point about why I don’t believe in—I’m not sure how
unknown
to read the film, but most of my friends read it as providing a kind of socio-psychological genesis of Joker. I don’t think this is the right approach. On the other hand, I have a certain, as I said on that Chapo appearance of mine, a certain respect. You know what I like in Joker? That all figures of authority hypocritically like to point out, "We are one thing publicly but privately we are warm persons and so on." Joker is just his mask. There is nothing beneath his mask. No warm human person and so on and so on. And this is for me the moment of truth. All totalitarian leaders, Stalin, Hitler, played the opposite game. You know, "I do cruel thing on because of on behalf of the big cause I’m standing for, but privately I like cats, I like small children, I’m a good guy." No. There is no warm human inner side. You know
to read the film, but most of my friends read it as providing a kind of socio-psychological genesis of Joker. I don’t think this is the right approach. On the other hand, I have a certain, as I said on that Chapo appearance of mine, a certain respect. You know what I like in Joker? That all figures of authority hypocritically like to point out, "We are one thing publicly but privately we are warm persons and so on." Joker is just his mask. There is nothing beneath his mask. No warm human person and so on and so on. And this is for me the moment of truth. All totalitarian leaders, Stalin, Hitler, played the opposite game. You know, "I do cruel thing on because of on behalf of the big cause I’m standing for, but privately I like cats, I like small children, I’m a good guy." No. There is no warm human inner side. You know
Slavoj Žižek
why I like this? Just to conclude. Because I don’t believe in this stupidity of to understand the situation you have to understand the other, how do they see it. One of the most—I often repeat this—stupid multiculturalist saying that I know is the one of "an enemy is the person who to whose story we were not ready to listen." I say, "Hello, are you serious?" So Hitler was our enemy because we were not ready to listen to his story? I think that if we can learn anything from 20th century history is that all horrible terrorist regimes were always able to construct a wonderful sincere poetic religious story to justify their horrors. This is not the truth. The truth is in what you do publicly, not in the beautiful poems you invent to justify it. What in the final question do you I read your piece you just put up um about Rojava and I do you have a message of solidarity for Rojava and the Kurds? Absolutely. I’m because you know why? Because as I wrote
why I like this? Just to conclude. Because I don’t believe in this stupidity of to understand the situation you have to understand the other, how do they see it. One of the most—I often repeat this—stupid multiculturalist saying that I know is the one of "an enemy is the person who to whose story we were not ready to listen." I say, "Hello, are you serious?" So Hitler was our enemy because we were not ready to listen to his story? I think that if we can learn anything from 20th century history is that all horrible terrorist regimes were always able to construct a wonderful sincere poetic religious story to justify their horrors. This is not the truth. The truth is in what you do publicly, not in the beautiful poems you invent to justify it. What in the final question do you I read your piece you just put up um about Rojava and I do you have a message of solidarity for Rojava and the Kurds? Absolutely. I’m because you know why? Because as I wrote
unknown
there, of course they are not angels in the sense of purity. They have their own
there, of course they are not angels in the sense of purity. They have their own
Slavoj Žižek
corruption struggles and so on. But I follow the situation very closely there. What shock me is that whenever they were given a little bit of a breathing space, they did incredible things. People attacked me because in that in that article that you were kind enough to mention I talk also about the Kurdish feminism. They they say "ha ha are you kidding?". No I'm not. Do you remember, it was even in our media, when Kurds from Rojava were fighting
corruption struggles and so on. But I follow the situation very closely there. What shock me is that whenever they were given a little bit of a breathing space, they did incredible things. People attacked me because in that in that article that you were kind enough to mention I talk also about the Kurdish feminism. They they say "ha ha are you kidding?". No I'm not. Do you remember, it was even in our media, when Kurds from Rojava were fighting
unknown
ISIS the key role was played by feminine soldiers and so on. It’s unique in the Middle East and so on. Even I know the situation in detail the imprisoned Öcalan, leader of
ISIS the key role was played by feminine soldiers and so on. It’s unique in the Middle East and so on. Even I know the situation in detail the imprisoned Öcalan, leader of
Slavoj Žižek
Turkish Kurds, you know that in prison he turned a feminist now. He proposes this sexual openness to other sex practice, women’s and so on and so on. They are an absolutely incredible phenomenon. The only like glimmer of hope in that area where all other stations around are again just drowning in their patriotic national totally be corrupted sovereignty, like—let’s call them—Turkey, Iraq, Syria. They are the only glimmer of hope and of course they will probably be destroyed. It’s. And forgive forgive me I just want to add there's another echo of it and that is actually the Kurdish HDP political party in Turkey who broadened out a social democratic base ecological feminist and labor. They performed well now they're political prisoners in Erdoğan's Turkey and it echoes exactly what you're talking about. Yeah, but isn’t this a nice paradox? Because as I said in that text of mine, we perceive automatically because we were fed by these stories, Kurds as some primitive tribal part. No, they are the most secular modern part of Turkish society. It’s incredible I mean. Slavoj Žižek thank you so much. I hope you'll do this again with us
Turkish Kurds, you know that in prison he turned a feminist now. He proposes this sexual openness to other sex practice, women’s and so on and so on. They are an absolutely incredible phenomenon. The only like glimmer of hope in that area where all other stations around are again just drowning in their patriotic national totally be corrupted sovereignty, like—let’s call them—Turkey, Iraq, Syria. They are the only glimmer of hope and of course they will probably be destroyed. It’s. And forgive forgive me I just want to add there's another echo of it and that is actually the Kurdish HDP political party in Turkey who broadened out a social democratic base ecological feminist and labor. They performed well now they're political prisoners in Erdoğan's Turkey and it echoes exactly what you're talking about. Yeah, but isn’t this a nice paradox? Because as I said in that text of mine, we perceive automatically because we were fed by these stories, Kurds as some primitive tribal part. No, they are the most secular modern part of Turkish society. It’s incredible I mean. Slavoj Žižek thank you so much. I hope you'll do this again with us
unknown
maybe in. And I hope I will do it face to face, not through this stupid media and so on. I would love to visit you. I like
maybe in. And I hope I will do it face to face, not through this stupid media and so on. I would love to visit you. I like
Slavoj Žižek
Brooklyn. You know why? Because in some part of Brooklyn you have now where there are all those new skyscrapers and so on, they opened there another Katz’s restaurant. And you get the best matzo ball soup there. I like I don’t like Jewish food in Israel. It’s the same trip as the Arab food, hummus, all that bullshit. I like Eastern European Jewish food. Matzo ball and so on. You like the real thing. You like the knishes. You like the real shit. Yeah. Yeah yeah yeah. And you can
Brooklyn. You know why? Because in some part of Brooklyn you have now where there are all those new skyscrapers and so on, they opened there another Katz’s restaurant. And you get the best matzo ball soup there. I like I don’t like Jewish food in Israel. It’s the same trip as the Arab food, hummus, all that bullshit. I like Eastern European Jewish food. Matzo ball and so on. You like the real thing. You like the knishes. You like the real shit. Yeah. Yeah yeah yeah. And you can
unknown
get it better one than on Manhattan, you get it in Brooklyn. So I’m with you. Okay brother. Well I'll see you soon. And if we do a talk
get it better one than on Manhattan, you get it in Brooklyn. So I’m with you. Okay brother. Well I'll see you soon. And if we do a talk
Slavoj Žižek
there, I invite you to matzo ball. Beautiful. Let's do it. I'm going to hold you to it.
there, I invite you to matzo ball. Beautiful. Let's do it. I'm going to hold you to it.
unknown
Slavoj I hope you enjoyed
Slavoj I hope you enjoyed
Slavoj Žižek
this. This was so much fun. I did. It’s a breath of fresh air again. I’m ill, in a bad mood, and I was able to forget for minutes the misery of my existence here now. That's the highest
this. This was so much fun. I did. It’s a breath of fresh air again. I’m ill, in a bad mood, and I was able to forget for minutes the misery of my existence here now. That's the highest
unknown
of compliments.
of compliments.